The offences charged against the accused persons are under sections 120(b), 109, 342, 366, 354, 354(b), 357, 376(d), 201, 212 with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 66E and 66A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
Suni had allegedly revealed to investigators that prominent figures from the Malayalam Film Industry, including Dileep, were not only involved in the crime but were also the masterminds behind it.
While hearing Suni’s bail plea, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan remarked that even if the accused has spent six years behind bars and the trial hasn’t concluded, bail can only be granted after considering the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by him.
He also remarked that the evidence given by the survivor actress prima facie showed that the incident was brutal in nature.
“There are some decisions that say that the gravity of the offences have to be considered as well…. prima facie the evidence of the victim…how brutal it is,” the single-judge remarked before reserving his verdict on the matter.
The last time Suni had moved the Kerala High Court for bail was in March of last year. After the High Court refused to grant him bail, he moved the Supreme Court.
In July, the top court too declined to grant him bail and on noting the statement of the survivor, it saw no reason to interfere with the Kerala High Court order refusing bail.
However, the top court said that if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time, Suni may renew his bail application before the High Court.
It is in line with that order that Suni filed the present plea.
Justice Kunhikrishnan is the same judge who had had declined to grant him bail in 2022 holding that the grounds on which he sought bail were already considered in detail by the High Court when he had previously applied for bail and that there had been no change in circumstances since then.
The trial in the case is currently underway at the Principal Sessions Court at Ernakulam.
In the present bail plea, Suni argued that the trial will take a long time still to be completed.
It was also highlighted that he has displayed good behaviour while in jail and his continued incarceration has made it very difficult for him to confer with and give proper instructions to his legal counsel.
Source: Barandbench
